From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #480
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu
Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 25 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 480
In this issue:
Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
Returned mail
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 03:31:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
Once upon a time J. Pharabod shaped the electrons to say...
> 8/31/77 Ye-266M absolute altitude - 123,524 ft = 37,650 m.
>
>The engines of the Ye-266M (D-30F 15,500 kg thrust) were more powerful
>than those of the SR-71 (Pratt&Whitney J58 14,700 kg) (sorry for the
>bad French aeronautical unit "kg").
Big difference here. That record was a zoom climb -firewall it and
point the nose up. Then coast back down after you starve the engines.
It can't cruise at altitudes that high, it is somewere in the 50-60K
range I believe. The F-15 Streak Eagle set some time to climb records and
either set or went for alt records - but it isn't practical.
(Yes, Streak not Strike. An 'A' model stripped for record setting.)
- -MZ
- -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944
MegaZone's Waste Of Time
Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works;
rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to
majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body.
------------------------------
From: Mail Router (smail 2.8.1 dl,da,fa,tu,po,qf,dbm 04/16/92 1)
Date: 25 Oct 95 06:41:21 EDT
Subject: Returned mail
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u -n attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-digest rpsmsgw @rpsmsgw:cfoster@rpspo2.atlantaga.ncr.com
smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP
server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
From skunk-works-digest Wed Oct 25 00:28:29 0700 1995 remote from gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7/8.7) with UUCP id GAA05010; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:38:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 25 Oct 95 06:37:11 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA16885 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:28:31 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA16878 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:28:29 -0700
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:28:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199510250728.AAA16878@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #479
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 25 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 479
In this issue:
Returned mail
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mail Router (smail 2.8.1 dl,da,fa,tu,po,qf,dbm 04/16/92 1)
Date: 25 Oct 95 03:27:42 EDT
Subject: Returned mail
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u -n attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-digest rpsmsgw @rpsmsgw:cfoster@rpspo2.atlantaga.ncr.com
smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP
server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
From skunk-works-digest Tue Oct 24 19:42:58 0700 1995 remote from gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub4.attgis.com (8.7.1/8.7) with UUCP id DAA14429; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 03:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 25 Oct 95 03:22:59 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA00255 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:42:59 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA00247 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:42:58 -0700
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:42:58 -0700
Message-Id: <199510250242.TAA00247@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #477
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 24 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 477
In this issue:
Re: Lockheed publication
Re[2]: CFIT ... etc.
Returned mail
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Fieser
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Lockheed publication
>
>A recent posting referred to a Lockheed/Martin publication available by
>subscription called "Code One". Does anyone have more information on
>Lockheed publications which are available to the public (cost, address,
>general content)? This group would be prime customers.
>
I purposefully did not include this information, since I did not want to appear
to promote a product, per se, in this forum. If people are interested (and I
assume by your posting that they are), I won't feel badly about it. Let me say
that I am not associated professionally with this publication (other than as a
subscriber), and I stand to gain nothing personally by posting this information.
Okay, here it is (taken directly from the inside cover):
Send correspondence to Code One Magazine,
Mail Zone 1793, Lockheed Martin TAS,
PO Box 748, Fort Worth, Texas 76101.
Our editorial office phone number is 817-777-5542.
For distribution information, call 777-5614.
Our fax number is 777-5557.
Personal Subscriptions:
Send your name, address, and $12 for a one-year
subscription (four issues) to Code One at the
address above. Foreign subscriptions are $25 (US).
Some back issues are available.
Please note that this is a publication of the branch of Lockheed located in
Fort Worth, Texas, formerly known as General Dynamics. As such, the content
focuses on primarily F-16s (and some F-22 and JAST stuff). It is NOT about
the Palmdale Skunkworks. There is another publication I have seen, called
Lockheed Horizons, which occasionally will focus on aircraft, but is more of
a "corporate" magazine. I have seen a past issue of Horizons which was
dedicated entirely to the F-117, but I'm afraid that was a special case.
Someone else may have more info on the Horizons magazine...
Greg Fieser
(since I am self-employed, the views expressed ARE those of my employer...)
- - ------------------------------
From: "Terry Colvin"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 16:28:35 EST
Subject: Re[2]: CFIT ... etc.
Cheryl Douglas reports the following: "...during the testing of the
F-111 terrain-following radar system they spoke of 'unauthorized terrain
incursions.'"
Congratulations, Cheryl! As far as I am concerned, your report sets the
new standard for euphemisms.
Bill Riddle
Army Aviation TASOV (Retired)
(Terrain Avoidance System Operator, Visual)
- - ------------------------------
From: Mail Router (smail 2.8.1 dl,da,fa,tu,po,qf,dbm 04/16/92 1)
Date: 24 Oct 95 22:42:34 EDT
Subject: Returned mail
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u -n attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-digest rpsmsgw @rpsmsgw:cfoster@rpspo2.atlantaga.ncr.com
smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP
server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
From skunk-works-digest Tue Oct 24 11:14:38 0700 1995 remote from gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7/8.7) with UUCP id WAA12255; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 24 Oct 95 22:38:29 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA07349 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:14:39 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA07341 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:14:38 -0700
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:14:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199510241814.LAA07341@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #476
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 24 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 476
In this issue:
Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #474
Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
unsuscribe
Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
Re: CFIT
Lockheed publication
Returned mail
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
- - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Adams
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:13:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
O.K. We seem to have a contradiction here.
tullman.robert@ehccgate.sandoz.com writes:
> The world's highest flying spy plane, the Russian M-55 ...
>
> The M-55 has a greater range and can carry more instruments than the
> American plane...
Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl writes:
> Also, the following was posted on Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:36:14 MET DST
> by Urban Fredriksson on this list:
>
> >Data for M-17:
> >Practical ceiling: 21500 m
>
> >Data for M-55:
> >Ceiling: 20000 m
>
> >[Air International Aug 1994]
How can the M-17/55 be the highest flying spy plane when the ceilings
listed are between 65,000 and 70,000 feet? The A-12/SR-71 had an
operational ceiling between 85,000 and 95,000 feet. I do not have
U-2 data with me at work, but I believe it was in the same area (80+K feet).
Anyway, is not the ozone layer at 105+K feet?
Paul
\ ___ / Paul Adams
\ /___\ / paul@erc.msstate.edu
____________\___/__.__\___/____________ YF-22
\ \ / /
\__/\___/\__/
- - - ------------------------------
From: quagga@world.std.com
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #474
[i fervently hope REPLYing to the digest is the right way for
this to be posted... ]
Hi folks.
I could not resist following up the thread
which has thus far enumerated ocean-synchronous orbit,
cumulo-granite formations and the use of terrain-
furrowing radar in near-miss situations.
I recently saw someone write in their .sig:
"the ground wins 100% of the time", attributed to an
Aardrvark driver. (mstuder@paul.spu.edu)
Anyhow, I read some time ago (I -WISH- I could give
this proper attribution) that during the testing
of the F-111 terrain-following radar system they
spoke of "unauthorized terrain incursions".
------------ ------- ----------
Bwahahahahaha(klunk) (eek, laughed my head off.)
Have a Nice Day.
Cheryl Douglas
USPA A-19274
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:58:24 MET
Subject: Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
>How can the M-17/55 be the highest flying spy plane when the ceilings
>listed are between 65,000 and 70,000 feet? The A-12/SR-71 had an
>operational ceiling between 85,000 and 95,000 feet. I do not have
>U-2 data with me at work, but I believe it was in the same area (80+K feet).
>Anyway, is not the ozone layer at 105+K feet?
>Paul Adams (Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:13:37 -0500)
According to the book "MiG 1939-1989" (Paris, 1991), by R.A. Belyakov
(then boss of the OKB MiG) and J. Marmain, the absolute altitude
record has been set by the (ex-)Soviet Ye-266 (pilot Fedotov):
8/31/77 Ye-266M absolute altitude - 123,524 ft = 37,650 m.
The engines of the Ye-266M (D-30F 15,500 kg thrust) were more powerful
than those of the SR-71 (Pratt&Whitney J58 14,700 kg) (sorry for the
bad French aeronautical unit "kg").
I think that there was a spy plane version of this MiG-25/Ye-266M, but
I am not sure (I have not the Belyakov&Marmain's book handy).
J. Pharabod
- - - ------------------------------
From: Dag Peak
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:18:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: unsuscribe
unsuscribe
- - - ------------------------------
From: John Burtenshaw
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:40:54 -0100
Subject: Re: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
At 14:58 24/10/95 MET, J. Pharabod wrote:
- - - ------------------------------
From: Greg Fieser
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:14:53 -0500
Subject: Re: CFIT
Okay, one more from my days on the F-15E sims:
The pilots were evaluating the computer-generated visual system that was used
to generate sensor images (EO, IR and radar). One of the features of these
"visual systems" is their ability to return a "height above terrain" value
that is used for both collision detection with the ground and RALT simulation.
During testing we were able to turn off this feature, and "fly" around "under"
the ground. One of the pilots observed our testing, and asked if they would
be able to fly "underground" in the sim. I responded that, in the sim, if they
tried this they would be limited to flying only "six feet under" the ground.
Apparently the humor was lost on him, as I heard him mention to his WSO
something about a technical limitation of the system allowing altitudes of
only "negative six feet"...
Greg Fieser
(since I'm self-employed, these views DO reflect those of my employer...)
- - - ------------------------------
From: "Joe Pialet"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 12:18:48 +0100
Subject: Lockheed publication
A recent posting referred to a Lockheed/Martin publication available by
subscription called "Code One". Does anyone have more information on
Lockheed publications which are available to the public (cost, address,
general content)? This group would be prime customers.
- - - ------------------------------
From: Mail Router (smail 2.8.1 dl,da,fa,tu,po,qf,dbm 04/16/92 1)
Date: 24 Oct 95 14:09:11 EDT
Subject: Returned mail
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u -n attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-digest rpsmsgw @rpsmsgw:cfoster@rpspo2.atlantaga.ncr.com
smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP
server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
From skunk-works-digest Tue Oct 24 04:58:03 0700 1995 remote from gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub4.attgis.com (8.7/8.7) with UUCP id OAA16669; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 24 Oct 95 14:03:48 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA25518 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:58:05 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id EAA25511 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:58:03 -0700
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 04:58:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199510241158.EAA25511@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #475
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 24 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 475
In this issue:
Re: Final Wishes
preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
Returned mail
Re: CFIT
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
- - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wei-Jen Su
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 03:51:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Final Wishes
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, JOHN F. REGUS wrote:
> Who can I contact at NASA, ESA, CIS, the Japanese, et al.
> to have my body sent into deep space (like the Voyager spacecraft) when I die.
>
> I am willing to spend up to $1 million (U.S.) .
>
> I am not kidding.
>
I don't really know who you should contact. But, there is a
program that will preserve your body until in the future they find a way
to cure your sickness (they use a technology that freeze your body,
Cryogenic maybe is the name ????)
Anyway, if you want to go to deep space after you die, if you was
a "good boy", your spirit will do it, and will go fartest than that (I
mean to another dimension too). So, you don't have to spend money in a
useless body and donate the money for good. Like my father said: "Your
body is like a dress, when it get old, you throw away and get another new
one, but your spirit is eternal..."
Live Long and Prosper
Su Wei-Jen
wsu02@barney.poly.edu
- - - - ------------------------------
From: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:25:15 +0100
Subject: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
>>>>> "TRADER" == TRADER writes:
TRADER> * The "TR-3A" tactical reconnaissance aircraft that Aviation
...
TRADER> manned reconnaissance mission.
That sounds to me like an replacement for the RF-4C
TRADER> * The Senate version of this report mentioned an incident I
TRADER> had not heard of before. They discussed funding anti-terrorist
TRADER> activities to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the World
TRADER> Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, -and- the 1981
TRADER> release of Uranium-235 in the New York water supply. I have
TRADER> never heard of the release of radioactive material before, but
TRADER> it does explain certain New York phenomena such as Howard
TRADER> Stern and Donald Trump...
Are you tacky or ...
- - - - ------------------------------
From: Mail Router (smail 2.8.1 dl,da,fa,tu,po,qf,dbm 04/16/92 1)
Date: 24 Oct 95 05:13:45 EDT
Subject: Returned mail
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u -n attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!skunk-works-digest rpsmsgw @rpsmsgw:cfoster@rpspo2.atlantaga.ncr.com
smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP
server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
From skunk-works-digest Mon Oct 23 23:30:19 0700 1995 remote from gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7/8.7) with UUCP id FAA01932; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 05:10:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 24 Oct 95 04:58:35 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA19609 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:30:20 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA19602 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:30:19 -0700
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:30:19 -0700
Message-Id: <199510240630.XAA19602@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
From: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #474
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Sender: skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Monday, 23 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 474
In this issue:
SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!)
Black aircraft at the Edwards AFB Open House
ASPJ
Re: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!)
Re: AFM, No. 91, October 1995
Israeli Air Tactics
Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]]
SR-71 Quick Launch
preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
Re: CFIT
crash slang (was Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]])
Russian M-55?
Re: CFIT
stealth helo's
Final Wishes
Return of the Son of ASPJ
RE: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
Myasishchev M-17/M-55
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
- - - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Art Hanley"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 00:13:53 +0700
Subject: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!)
Andreas (GREAT post on 959 by the way),
It seems we may not be so far apart as it first appeared; I too
would like to see 25 SR-71s, but we probably didn't have that many
operational simultaneously at the program's peak and even if it were
possible to bring back any that may have been stored in climate
controlled museums, that would only get a few more. No question, we
are talking about a genuine Silver Bullet here. But, it's one that's
paid for, and the money to run it isn't coming out of other programs.
Besides, for those times when you're having to take on werewolves,
all the lead bullets in the world won't help you.
I would agree that in most tactical cases, you're going to have to
forward deploy the SR, but that's OK. We aren't launching strike
missions over Bosnia from CONUS either. We could base them as close
as we would other very valuable aircraft, and with the Quick Launch
procedure could get them out faster than normal if we had to.
True, we only have two right now, with the possibility of two more
(I wouldn't want to take Mary's back unless there was a BIG
emergency), but how many U-2s do we ever deploy? Do we have Any E-8s
available now? How many will we have during the five years the SR are
presently planned to remain in service? We covered all of Europe with
two SRs stationed in England, and only occasionally did we supplement
them out of Beale on special occasions. Your questions on
availability are valid, that's one of the things that has to be
explored. One thing we'll have to assume is that when the need is
determined to be great enough, both SRs will be sent to the area.
Also, control will have to be released to the tactical commanders.
We have ample experience with what happens when you try to have
tactical control from Washington. As to how much it takes to support
the SR, remember that the England Det was operated with 35 people,
including aircrews.
Your arguments regarding the SR needing a lot of luck would apply
even more to satellites. Regardless of how far to the side a orbiter
can look, the other guys know when they're coming. Satellites do a lot,
but not everything. If they or E-3s or U-2s could supply the total
solution in this situation, why is NATO sending over all those
tactical planes to image Bosnia? Bosnia, by the way, was probably
Not the main reason the SR was brought back. It was probably a much
wider deficiency that needed to be addressed for the years to come.
Another SR mission might be to check on the positions of ships of
interest or to look into sub pens from an angle before they close the
doors.
You can't get an SR in the air as fast as you can a F-16, but you
can't scramble an E-8 or U-2 either. All these assets bring
different capabilities to the mix, and the more options you have, the
better you can pick the one that best meets the need. If you need to
loiter waiting for something to happen, and you can remain over
friendly territory, the SR is certainly not not your first choice.
On the other hand (Forgive me, it's late at night and I've got to do
this)...
[SCENE: Imperial HQ in Eastern Ramalamadingdong]
SCENARIO ONE
"Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an
aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no
doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them
we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today."
"Don't they trust us? The Swine! When will it be in position to
locate our heavy armor column for their barbaric attack aircraft, and
what kind of plane is it"?
"In about 18 minutes. It appears to be another aircraft with
excellent loiter characteristics, Fearless One".
"Bring forth the Glorious SA-6s of the Revolution, my faithful
lackey".
"Your command has been obeyed, oh Hero of a Thousand Battles".
"Let the Flames of Power be ignited that my Mighty Arm of
Vengeance be lofted like a Sword of the Skies".
"Huh"?
"FIRE, IDIOT"!
"Oh."
A Few Moments Later
"It is done, Magnificent Leader".
"Excellent. Now, go collect the pilot and put him with the others".
SCENARIO TWO
"Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an
aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no
doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them
we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today."
"Don't they trust us? The Swine! When will it be in position to
locate our heavy armor column for their barbaric attack aircraft, and
what kind of plane is it"?
"In about 43 seconds. It appears to be
THE FASTEST AIRPLANE IN THE WORLD,
Fearless One".
"Bring forth the Glorious Elevator of the Revolution that I may
retire to my underground bunker to plan more victories".
Art "Budding Thespian" Hanley
(Well, you've got to admit the last part was different than my other
posts, at least)
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: oski@physics.ucla.edu (L. Ravi Narasimhan)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 01:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Black aircraft at the Edwards AFB Open House
Greetings folks,
Some fluff for your Monday morning:
Fans of black aircraft had a rare treat on Saturday 21 October, 1995
at the Edwards AFB Open House. There was a beautiful U2/TR-1 on
static display complete with a beard of antennae underneath one of the
wingpods, a B-2 right next to it, and an assortment of experimental
birds; F/A-18 HARV, F-16XL, ASTI F-16, and X-31 all within the same
hangar.
Instead of the Thunderbirds, we had a beautiful F-117 threeship demo,
several F-16/F-15 flybys thanks to the Test Pilot squadron, and a few
passes by the B-2. Whoever thought up this show did a marvelous job.
The Northrop N9M flying wing from the Planes of Fame in Chino strutted
its stuff to an appreciative crowd and then its successor came
swooping in in dramatic fashion. Watching the F-117 do hesitation
rolls was, in and of itself, worth the drive.
I'm still not a fan of either the B-1 or B-2 programs, but, the
demonstrations were interesting nonetheless.
Amazing base, Edwards. 75 miles from my apartment to the main gate.
And another 25 to the flightline. Sprawling simply doesn't do justice
to the expanse.
- - - - - - --
Ravi Narasimhan |
Department of Physics, UCLA | An observer who crosses the Cauchy horizon
Los Angeles, CA 90024 | emancipates himself from his past
oski@physics.ucla.edu | --- S. Chandrasekhar
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:20:37 GMT
Subject: ASPJ
Er, Art, I think I'd like to quibble with your figures. Shouldn't a 30%
increase in survivabilty mean a 30% reduction in the number of aircraft
shot down or damaged? So if 77% were expected to survive and 23% get
killed (which is a pretty horrid ratio if you're a pilot - the chance of
surviving five of these missions is pretty slim! The RAF were concerned in
WWII about the loss rate reaching 13%), you want to save 30% of 23% ie to
reduce the loss rate to roughly 16%.
That way, the figures do have meaning.
As for perfecting the design, remember "there comes a point in every
project when it's time to shoot the designers and go into production". Or,
another saying, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough".
8-)
Steve
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 07:34:35 -0500
Subject: Re: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!)
Art Hanlet wrote (or was it acted!)
> [SCENE: Imperial HQ in Eastern Ramalamadingdong]
>
>
> SCENARIO ONE
>
>"Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an
>aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no
>doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them
>we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today."
......Several scenes deleted.......
Bravo, Bravo, encore........
Keep up the good work,
John
|
/ ^ \ ___|___
-(.)====(.)- --------o---((.))---o--------
SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady
John Stone
jstone@iglou.com
john.stone@shivasys.com
U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: Greg Fieser
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:00:38 -0500
Subject: Re: AFM, No. 91, October 1995
Re:
>"The Merge", pages 16-21, which is a report on the first mock dogfights
>between USAF F-16Cs from the 510th FS based at Aviano AB, Italy, and
>German Luftwaffe MiG-29 from JG73. The flights took place at the ACMI
>(Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation) range at Decimomannu, Sardinia.
>The article includes 10 photos of MiG-29s, F-16Cs, F-4Fs and F-104S', but
>no MiG-23s, though. The Germans deployed 9 MiG-29s, 1 MiG-29UB, and 15
>F-4Fs, all from JG73, based at Laage.
I believe this is a reprint from the Lockheed/Martin (nee GD) publication
entitled "Code One". The article appeared in the July 1995 issue, under the
title "Schlemming With The Fulcrum" ("schlemm" translates into "Grand Slam" in
German, I believe). It was written/co-photographed by Eric Hehs, the editor
of "Code One" and a friend of mine. I haven't seem the AFM issue, but the
original article has a lot of great color photography, both aerial and static,
of both aircraft. "Code One" is available by subscription, and always has LOTS
of color photography of aviation subjects. I'v been a subscriber for more years
than I care to remember...
Greg Fieser
(does not work for any subsidiary of Lockheed Martin...)
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: David Lednicer
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 08:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Israeli Air Tactics
From my extensive research into the IDF/AF operations, I believe
the F-4E/Mi-8 story is true - it is from Cheetah Cohen's book, which is
pretty trustworthy.
However, William Stevenson's book, "Zanek", in my opinion, is total
fiction. Much of what he wrote in that book has not been substantiated.
The Magister/MiG-21 story, in particular, has never been reported
anywhere else - and no Israeli I have met has ever heard about it.
- - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: "Terry Colvin"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 08:36:53 EST
Subject: Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]]
Civilian pilots refer to this as CFIT [controlled flight into terrain].
The Operations Research magazine, published by ORSA, article on the
early days of ground-avoidance systems cites an "amusing" story. Often
these systems alerted air crews with false alarms. A pilot coming in
to Madrid for landing was heard to say "Shut up, gringo" and shortly
afterwards a cessation of recording due to CFIT.
****************************Forwarded Message***************************
I've heard USAF fighter pilots call that a "ground mort" and USN fighter
pilots call it a "Fox Four". (Is the Fox code a thread here, or was I
reading it somewhere else?) Ground mort seems more widespread than Fox
Four, though.
Regards,
Mary
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end....
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Rick" == Rick Pavek writes:
>
> Rick> I'll go you one better.
>
> Rick> In the book Zanek (about the Israeli Air Force) there's an
> Rick> account of an Israeli Fouga Magister bringing down a Mig-21.
>
> Rick> He flew around in the canyons and goaded the Mig until the Mig
> Rick> went in after him... and couldn't make the grade. Literally.
>
> Yes, the ground have an awful high kill ratio.
>
> An unhappy Mig-23 pilot experienced the same thing some year ago.
> He tried to follow an low-flying Viggen over the baltic and
> hit the sea.
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 10:54:09 ÿÿÿ
Subject: SR-71 Quick Launch
One thing I sould have made clearer in my post last night was that the Quick
Launch procedure would be used to get a SR-71 airborne faster than usual in
order to fly it to safety in case its operating base was threatened. It is Not
a way to "scramble" a SR-71 for operational missions.
I hope I didn't cause any confusion.
Art Hanley
If you asked my employers whether they had
anything to do with the above, if it represented
their views or if they even knew about it,
they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the
truth.
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: TRADER@cup.portal.com
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 11:24:35 PDT
Subject: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
Although the President and the Congress are still fighting over the
Fiscal Year 1996 budget, I've been doing some research on Fiscal
Year 1996 classified U.S. military programs, also known as "black"
or Special Access Required programs. Here's some preliminary info
that I've found:
* The "TR-3A" tactical reconnaissance aircraft that Aviation Week
has mentioned may have been cut from the budget. (There have been
arguments for and against the existence of such a classified
aircraft.) More specifically, Title II, Section 213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (as mentioned in
House of Representatives report 104-131) "prohibits the obligation
of funds by the Secretary of the Air Force for research, development,
test, or evaluation for a replacement aircraft, pod, or sensor
payload" for the tactical manned reconnaissance mission.
* The purpose of a classified Army program code-named TRACTOR
HIKE (Program Element 0603009A) was accidentally revealed to
be a joint Army-ARPA program for a intel. balloon (an aerostat)
to be used as a surveillance platform. Similar balloons carrying
radars are already used against drug traffickers. This balloon
could carry other types of intelligence sensors, such as optical
or SIGINT equipment. I had seen a mention of ARPA's role in a
balloon project before, but had no details.
* The Senate version of this report mentioned an incident I had
not heard of before. They discussed funding anti-terrorist
activities to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the World
Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, -and- the 1981 release
of Uranium-235 in the New York water supply. I have never heard
of the release of radioactive material before, but it does explain
certain New York phenomena such as Howard Stern and Donald Trump...
Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com
http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: Greg Fieser
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:45:42 -0500
Subject: Re: CFIT
Re:CFIT
When I was working on the F-15E sims back in the mid '80, the pilots there were
mostly F-111 guys, and they called the acronym for Terrain Following Radar (TFR)
as Terrain FURROWING Radar...(no offense intended, Martin Marietta...)
Greg Fieser
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 15:18:05 EDT
Subject: crash slang (was Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]])
> I've heard USAF fighter pilots call that a "ground mort" and USN fighter
> pilots call it a "Fox Four". (Is the Fox code a thread here, or was I
> reading it somewhere else?) Ground mort seems more widespread than Fox
> Four, though.
The term "cumulo-granite" is used in similar circumstances.
Neil
neil@progress.com
P.S. Isn't Fox-Two what they called in Vietnam to indicate a Sidewinder launch?
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: tullman.robert@ehccgate.sandoz.com
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 16:24:01 -0400
Subject: Russian M-55?
Skunkers,
Forgive my ignorance..
I came across this in the Oct. 7, 1995 Issue of New Scientist (a
science magazine from the UK) p.10; excerpt follows:
****************************************
Ozone Spy
The world's highest flying spy plane, the Russian M-55 is about to
give European scientists their first close-up view of the the thin,
stratospheric clouds that destroy ozone........
The M-55 has a greater range and can carry more instruments than the
American plane.......
*****************************************
I never heard of this beast!
New Scientist has a new Web site (http://www.newscientist.com/) where
perhaps this article can be found in its entirety..
Bob
______________________________________________________________
|tullman@sandoz.com | Robert H. Tullman, PhD
|bobtull@planet.net | http://www.planet.net/bobtull
NOTE THAT THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE AND DO NOT REFLECT SANDOZ
COMPANY POLICY
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: Dave Cox
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:15:02 +7
Subject: Re: CFIT
>Re:CFIT
>
>When I was working on the F-15E sims back in the mid '80, the pilots there were
>mostly F-111 guys, and they called the acronym for Terrain Following Radar (TFR)
>as Terrain FURROWING Radar...(no offense intended, Martin Marietta...)
Ahhh... CFIT, one of my all time favorite euphonyms. I've also heard
sat folks speak of achieving an ocean-synchronous orbit.
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: Thomas Porter
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:54:02 -0400
Subject: stealth helo's
To All Greetings:
This may be a bit lame for this group, but I am trying to find
concrete info about possible stealth helo's utilizing
counter-rotating rotors for stability and possible noise
cancellation effects, low ratation speeds, etc. Probably no
tail rotor, maybe a ducted fan?
Anyone heard of such a thing? Please email if possible.
Tom Porter
tom.porter@interramp.com
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: "JOHN F. REGUS"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:08:26 -0600
Subject: Final Wishes
Who can I contact at NASA, ESA, CIS, the Japanese, et al.
to have my body sent into deep space (like the Voyager spacecraft) when I die.
I am willing to spend up to $1 million (U.S.) .
I am not kidding.
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: "Art Hanley"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:13:22 +0700
Subject: Return of the Son of ASPJ
Steven Barber wrote:
>Shouldn't a 30% increase in survivability mean a 30% reduction in
>the number of aircraft shot down or damaged? So if 77% were
>expected to survive and 23% get killed (which is a pretty horrid
>ratio if you're a pilot - the chance of surviving five of these
>missions is pretty slim! The RAF were concerned in WWII about the
>loss rate reaching 13%), you want to save 30% of 23% ie to reduce
>the loss rate to roughly 16%.
Steve, your figures are absolutely correct, but you are
unfortunately succumbing to clear thinking and logical conclusions.
When you start talking legislation, semantics becomes very important.
If you wish to give them the benefit of the doubt, it might be
argued that what you said may be what the framers Wanted to say, but
as related to me and in publications of the time, that's not what
they Did say. The calculations you put forth show a 30% decrease in
planes that are lost, but what was reportedly required was a 30%
increase in planes that survived. This sounds like the same thing
but isn't. The difference between 75 and 100 is 25 no matter which
way you go, but it's a 33% increase from 75 to 100, yet only a 25%
decrease from 100 to 75. Same thing here, it's how the criteria are
set up. 77% is the point where a 30% increase in the survivability
rate becomes mathematically impossible. When you're talking
legislation or Congressional direction, how it's worded is critical.
This may sound dubious, but except for the fact that it was way off
the subject of the list (doesn't even involve aerospace), I could
cite a recent example where the very framers of passed legislation
publicly stated that the wording used produced a result that was
absolutely not their intention. Despite this, they never got around
to changing the legislation, and even though everyone freely admitted
that no one wanted to actually apply the legislation as written, they
had to follow it, even to the point of the Government defending
against court challenges of legislation the authors admitted they
didn't want! This stuff actually happens, and it has a bearing on
our development and use of advanced technologies.
Going against a well run, modern integrated defense system can make
for some horrendous loss rates. Another thread on the list is
talking about Israeli tactics in the Yom Kippur War. If you go back
and look at the opening phase of that conflict, you'll see that the
Egyptian "missile wall" (especially the SA-6) stopped the Israeli Air
Force cold. The IAF was essentially impotent in those areas
protected by the "wall" until ground forces overran the launchers.
You could also see how nervous striking crews might have gotten
attacking Soviet warships by plotting the published ranges of the
Soviets' naval SAMs against the published range of our standoff
weapons of the late '80s. This kind of thing is what makes true
stealth so vitally important and why it's being incorporated into as
many designs as possible. .
I don't think we can fault the designers on this one. If what ASPJ's
defenders say is correct, and there is evidence to support at least a
part of what they say, it wouldn't matter how perfect they could have
gotten the system, it probably wasn't going to go into production.
Just my opinion from limited knowledge.
Art
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: "Art Hanley"
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:17:20 +0700
Subject: RE: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs
Here's some more thoughts on the forthcoming "black" budget that Paul
talked about in his informative post.
"TR-3A" has been used for a few years to refer to a rumored Northrop
stealth aircraft developed as a companion to the F-117. Artists'
concepts on both sides of the Atlantic have been fairly similar and
show a Manta-Ray shaped aircraft. Supposedly (if it even exists) it
is even more stealthy than the F-117. It is said to be unarmed and
is used for covert reconnaissance and to designate targets for
F-117s. Some sources say it was operational in Desert Storm. Of
course, this can all be just people's imaginations running away with
them, too.
The Title II Section 213 wording sounds similar to stuff that has
been in previous bills. This actually may tie in with the return of
the SR-71. Speculation is that one of the reasons Congress didn't
fight harder to save the SR-71 before is a rumor that it was at
least implied that there was "something else" ready for service that
was superior. Around 1992-93 in closed door hearings the Air Force
asked for money to develop a new system. Members of Congress are
said to have gotten angry to discover that the new system didn't in
fact already exist and took the retirement of the SR-71 as a tactic
to help justify the new system. Wording forbidding development of
such a system has shown up in the past couple of defense bills.
I have no idea at all if any of the last paragraph is realy true, I'm just
passing on what has appeared in (I think) Aviation Week or Defense
News (I can't remember). Maybe someone else can shed more light.
Art
- - - - - ------------------------------
From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 02:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Myasishchev M-17/M-55
Robert H. Tullman asked about the M-55:
The twin-engine Myasishchev (now Molniya ?) M-55 (or Mya-55) 'Geofisika' was
developed from the single-engine Myasishchev M-17 (or Mya-17) 'Stratosphere'.
The M-17 was developed as a high-altitude (reconnaissance-) balloon
interceptor, in response to US programs such as 'Moby Dick', 'Genetrix' and
others. The aircraft was originally assigned the preliminary US-Intelligence
code 'RAM-M', when it was first observed at Ramenskoye, near Moscow, and
later received the NATO reporting name 'Mystic', and later 'Mystic A'.
Four aircraft were built, of which the first prototype crashed, another,
registered 'CCCP-17103', is on display at the museum at Monino, while a
third, registered 'CCCP-17401', was used as high-altitude ozone research
aircraft, bearing the titles 'Global Ozone Reserve' (in English) on its side.
The twin-engine M-55 (NATO reporting name 'Mystic B') was developed for the
same purpose as the U-2R/TR-1 -- high-altitude reconnaissance -- but is used
for exactly the same purposes, the ER-2 is used by NASA -- high-altitude
research flights. While the M-17 had a Koljesow RD-36-51W turbojet, the M-55
uses two Aviadwigatel (Solowjew) RD-30-10W turbofans.
Four aircraft were built, of which one was registered 'RF-01552' (RF for
Russian Federation, written in Cyrillic, looking somehow like 'p qp'), and
with the text 'Geofisika' (also in Cyrillic) on its side, while another,
registered 'RF-55204', with 'Geofisika' and the Farnborough'94 airshow number
'228' on its nose, was displayed on the ground and in the air at this British
airshow last year.
Both aircraft resemble a short-nosed Lockheed U-2, with the main difference
being the high wing and twin boom layout for the two rudders with a high-
placed stabilizer/elevator, similar to an OV-10 Bronco.
Also, the following was posted on Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:36:14 MET DST
by Urban Fredriksson on this list:
>Subject: Balloons and Mystics
>Contrary to what I used to think, the Myasishchev M-17/55 weren't originally
>designed as high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. They were actually
>conceived as anti-balloon fighters.
>During 1956-1977 a total of 4112 balloons were observed over the Warsaw
>Pact, some of which of course were civilan weather balloons. But many were
>military, as shown by that 3000 were launched during Jan and Feb 1956 and
>several hundreds in Dec 1980 and Jan 1981.
>793 were shot down by fighters, using an average of 1.4 missiles, 26 rockets
>and 112 cannon rounds. Among the fighters were MiG-19, MiG-21, Tu-128,
>Su-15TM and Yak-28P. Older SAMs were adapted for anti-balloon work in the
>1970's and all new radars were required to be able to detect them.
>In 1971 a competion was put forth for a night capable very high altitude
>fighter with a movable gun turret. One candidate was the Yak-25PA
>(perekhvatchik aerostatov = balloon interceptor), but the winner was the
>M-17. They did research the U-2 wing design, but as the requirements were
>different it wasn't copied for this application. The first prototype flew
>in 1978.
>The weapon system, including optronic direction finders capable of finding
>a 30 m (many were 100 m in diameter) balloon at 30-40 km distance was tested
>aboard a Tu-16. Armament was a two barrel GSh-23 with 500 rounds with extra
>sensitive fuses, capable of reaching balloons 4000 m above the aircraft.
>Data for M-17:
>Span: 40.32 m
>Max take off weight: 18400 kg
>Practical ceiling: 21500 m
>Max speed at 20000 m: 401 kts; 5000 m: 179 kts
>Landing speed: 102 kts
>Range: 1315 km, endurance 2 h 14 min
>During development in the later 1980's the need disappeared. But there were
>other uses for high-altitude aircraft and the prime one was real time
>tactical reconnaissance to aid in the attack of small targets behind the
>front line.
>This required an aircraft capable of carrying a larger (1500 kg) load and
>having a longer endurance. Myasishchev designed the derivative M-55, but the
>air force M-17RM (razvedchik moifitsirovanny = modified reconnaissance),
>which first flew in 1988.
>Data for M-55:
>Span: 37.46 m
>Max take off weight: 23800 kg
>Ceiling: 20000 m
>Cruise speed at 20000 m: 378-405 kts
>Range: 4965 km
>Endurance at 20000 m: 4 h 12 min; at 17000: 5 h.
>[Air International Aug 1994]
- - - - - - -- Andreas
- - - - - - --- ---
Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org
313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu
Flint, MI 48502-1239
Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/
- - - - - - --- ---
- - - - - ------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #474
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).
- - - - ------------------------------
From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 07:52:16 EDT
Subject: Re: CFIT
> From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Mon Oct 23 16:48:42 1995
> Greg Fieser says:
> Re:CFIT
>
> When I was working on the F-15E sims back in the mid '80, the pilots there were
> mostly F-111 guys, and they called the acronym for Terrain Following Radar (TFR)
> as Terrain FURROWING Radar...(no offense intended, Martin Marietta...)
>
> Greg Fieser
>
I've heard GE, GD, MM, and various other manufacturers involved with
the F111 blamed for the early crashes of the F111.
Back in 1966&67 I worked for a small manufacturer of accelerometers
in the Williamsville area of Western New York. They built the
multiboard guidance platform for the F111 and then sold it to GD.
When the F111s started crashing the Military/GD sent people to this
company to investigate if the boards were at fault. They had
recovered some and it looked as if there were bad solder joints on
them. The individuals doing soldering were initially blamed but
further investigation proved that the Shake Table used in testing
was out of calibration and probably shaking the boards to near
breakage. After a few flights the aircraft's vibration finished the
job. There was a lot of sadness on the soldering line for awhile.
I don't know the final out come. Everyone was trained according
to NASA NPC-2000 and re-certified every 30 days. I have always been
left with belief that blame was attached to this company and if
some one knows the truth I would appreciate hearing it. I have
purposely left the name of the company out of this posting.
The accelerometers were also used for the guidance platform for the
Lunar Lander and they were all good. It was a different package
that was used for the F111.
Paul
mangan@kodak.com
- - - - ------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #475
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).
- - - ------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #476
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).
- - ------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #477
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).
- ------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #479
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).
------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #480
*********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).